No. No it is not. It's because they have amazing food down there. In California, 9/10ths of all restaurants are total fucking shit food with total fucking shit service. I can outcook them any and every day of the week, and I do, and I have no formal training whatsoever. In Texas, 9/10ths of all restaurants are at least basically competent. I think it's because Texans will tell you just what they think of you, and all the incompetents have fled for California, or committed suicide.

It's also because it's stupid hot, and you can't go outside.

Put the two together and you have a lot of driving from restaurant to restaurant with precious little fat-burning in between. That's what happened to me, anyway. Gained 100 lbs in a year and a half. The weight's off now, but ugh.

If you couldn't step outside without tripping over a chicken fried steak, you'd be fat, too.

You mean like taxicab drivers? No. We should do away with them immediately.

So your argument against permitting people to hire their services is that it will threaten others' wages? Congratulations, you just cast your vote for no progress ever. Please move back into a cave, and give up your PC.

No, and only a someone who does not understand English at all could possibly come to that conclusion without being a prevaricating prickwad. They complained about the nature, not the number.

Cabbies drive like fuckheads because they have no competition, because of bullshit protectionist restraint of trade.

I remember some 20 years ago a friend of mine was telling me that sooner or later, your microwave would have a whole operating system on it, even though it only performed simple tasks. It was already cheaper even then to use a MCU over discrete logic for many devices which were not staggeringly complex. It's about development time. As long as we fail to demand quality, we will continue to get what is convenient to produce in quantity. Pity about quality.

The perjury clause doesn't say what you think it says. If I own the rights on work A, to file a notice on work B, I claim that work B infringes work A. The perjury clause kicks in only if I do not own the rights to work A (or represent the person who does). If work B doesn't infringe, then that's a matter for the courts. This is quite annoying, but it does make sense. It's clear cut if works A and B are the same, but not in the case that B is a derived work of A. A court has to decide whether the use of A in B counts under fair use or not.

The counterbalance for this is that the DMCA does indemnify YouTube if they respond to a counternotice and reinstate the work. If you, the owner of work B, think it does not infringe then you send such a notice to YouTube. I then have no further recourse against YouTube and must take you to court directly.

The problem here is that it's very easy to automate sending takedown notices, but very hard to automate sending counter-notices. Mass-sending of automated takedown notices was something that the authors of the DMCA didn't foresee and the act probably needs amending to require the notice to explicitly state (under penalty of perjury) the person who has compared the works and their reason for believing that they are infringing.

The US learned that it's more profitable to wage than to win wars. At least for the elite few. It's really win-win in every aspect. You get the masses occupied with an external foe, you get the rabble off the street by dumping it into the army (and at the same time make them feel important because they're doing something important) and you can make the elite rich at the same time.

The US also has the economy to fuel the whole shit, unlike Germany in WW2. And also unlike Germany in WW2, they're not dumb enough to actually engage in a war with anyone who could actually fight back.

Really?

Fuck, the terrorists won, they're all over the US already!

Considering the price to develop something (along with the price of training the guy), I prefer a bunch of low cost religious nuts with AKs in their hands.

Hey, that's today's naming scheme. You take the meaning of a word, twist it around and create something that confuses the hell out of someone reading it.

It's called "political correctness".

In a city? A .308, even a .223, or the venerable .30-06 will do that job just fine

Thank you for some insight!

But no, we can't post anything that might hurt the feelings of both the left and right. Much better to make one happy and one miserable. Who cares if the truth is in the middle?

I'm certain the OpenBSD guys have literally never cared a single bit. Their goal is to make a secure, clean, and open codebase that people can use and build upon. Anything beyond it simply existence is a bonus.

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;

Making a 180 and flying above a manned helicopter is interference with that helicopter, and is certainly not giving way to them. Further, the definition of "model aircraft" requires that it be:

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft

Two miles away is not "visual line of sight" of something the size of a Phantom. If you think the pilot was maintaining "visual line of sight" as his craft was flying between buildings to get away from the cops, you're wrong.

Further, it would be interesting to find out if any of the neighborhoods he'd been flying this thing in were closer than 5 miles to any airport, or if he even considered that problem.

As long as those model aircraft meet the definition of model aircraft and operate in according with that law. Which is one way of saying that the AMA is not in total control of model aircraft, just a limited subset.

This was not a model aircraft. It was a toy. And one of the guidelines is it must remain in sight of the pilot, which this one didn't.